Vaccines are Safe

The Institute of Medicine has released a report saying that vaccines are safe and not linked to autism.

By Tia Ghose | August 26, 2011

Flu VaccineFLICKR, USACE EUROPE DISTRICT, CAROLE E. DAVIS

Vaccines are safe and not the cause of autism, according to a new report from the Institute of Medicine, the health arm of the National Academies. The panel based its conclusions on the review of more than 1,000 studies on eight vaccines commonly given to children, including those for chickenpox, meningitis, tetanus, and measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR).

The evidence that the MMR vaccine is not to blame for autism is “overwhelming,” Ellen Wright Clayton, the chairwoman of the panel, told The New York Times. The study found that vaccines were very safe, with temporary reactions such as swelling at the injection site or fainting being the most common side effects.

Some serious side effects were linked to vaccines, but occurred very rarely. Among them: those who receive the chicken pox vaccine could later come down with pneumonia or meningitis if their immune systems become compromised by diseases such as cancer, and the MMR vaccine occasionally sets off brain inflammation or seizures, Nature reports. Six of the eight vaccines can also cause allergic reactions. The more serious side effects most commonly occur in children who have underlying immune problems.

Tags

Add a Comment

Comments

Anonymous

August 26, 2011

I have two questions. Â Did the scientists studying vaccine safety use vaccines containing Thimerosal in their study? Â Where we live in New Zealand, the government removed the mercury based stabiliser from vaccines sometime during the last decade, but the unit responsible for national vaccinations won't even enter into conversation about it. Â And, secondly, has a study or trial been carried out on children who have problems with their immune systems, and who display problems through, for example, food allergies or intolerance, asthma, eczema, allergic rhinitis? Â I noticed a significant change in my son following his 3 years immunisations, once he'd recovered from being unwell. Â My GP, when encouraging me to continue with immunisations for my children, uses the rationale that "there's no scientific evidence to support the claim that vaccinations are harmful". Â I don't understand that as a justification, and don't necessarily trust those in the health profession who use a negative to justify a positive action.Â

I have two questions. Â Did the scientists studying vaccine safety use vaccines containing Thimerosal in their study? Â Where we live in New Zealand, the government removed the mercury based stabiliser from vaccines sometime during the last decade, but the unit responsible for national vaccinations won't even enter into conversation about it. Â And, secondly, has a study or trial been carried out on children who have problems with their immune systems, and who display problems through, for example, food allergies or intolerance, asthma, eczema, allergic rhinitis? Â I noticed a significant change in my son following his 3 years immunisations, once he'd recovered from being unwell. Â My GP, when encouraging me to continue with immunisations for my children, uses the rationale that "there's no scientific evidence to support the claim that vaccinations are harmful". Â I don't understand that as a justification, and don't necessarily trust those in the health profession who use a negative to justify a positive action.Â

I have two questions. Â Did the scientists studying vaccine safety use vaccines containing Thimerosal in their study? Â Where we live in New Zealand, the government removed the mercury based stabiliser from vaccines sometime during the last decade, but the unit responsible for national vaccinations won't even enter into conversation about it. Â And, secondly, has a study or trial been carried out on children who have problems with their immune systems, and who display problems through, for example, food allergies or intolerance, asthma, eczema, allergic rhinitis? Â I noticed a significant change in my son following his 3 years immunisations, once he'd recovered from being unwell. Â My GP, when encouraging me to continue with immunisations for my children, uses the rationale that "there's no scientific evidence to support the claim that vaccinations are harmful". Â I don't understand that as a justification, and don't necessarily trust those in the health profession who use a negative to justify a positive action.Â

I don't see how a lack of evidence is a negative? Think about it like a court case where you need evidence to convict someone. There is insuffienct evidence to convict vaccines for the crime of autism.

No study can take every variable into account so I doubt if this study looked at every different type of problem associated with the immune system or food intolerances.

All you need to do is look at the facts. Polio is gone becuase of vaccines. Smallpox is gone because of vaccines. Measles Mumps and Rubella incidences are way down because of vaccines. Vaccines are only used in cases where there is proof that they work, and proof that not being vaccinated would cause lifelong debilitation or death!

If you do not vaccinate your child you are endangering everyone elses. We need 95% vaccinated to achieve herd immunity.

I don't see how a lack of evidence is a negative? Think about it like a court case where you need evidence to convict someone. There is insuffienct evidence to convict vaccines for the crime of autism.

No study can take every variable into account so I doubt if this study looked at every different type of problem associated with the immune system or food intolerances.

All you need to do is look at the facts. Polio is gone becuase of vaccines. Smallpox is gone because of vaccines. Measles Mumps and Rubella incidences are way down because of vaccines. Vaccines are only used in cases where there is proof that they work, and proof that not being vaccinated would cause lifelong debilitation or death!

If you do not vaccinate your child you are endangering everyone elses. We need 95% vaccinated to achieve herd immunity.

I don't see how a lack of evidence is a negative? Think about it like a court case where you need evidence to convict someone. There is insuffienct evidence to convict vaccines for the crime of autism.

No study can take every variable into account so I doubt if this study looked at every different type of problem associated with the immune system or food intolerances.

All you need to do is look at the facts. Polio is gone becuase of vaccines. Smallpox is gone because of vaccines. Measles Mumps and Rubella incidences are way down because of vaccines. Vaccines are only used in cases where there is proof that they work, and proof that not being vaccinated would cause lifelong debilitation or death!

If you do not vaccinate your child you are endangering everyone elses. We need 95% vaccinated to achieve herd immunity.

Are you talking about Meleck or the people doing the study? Â If the former, she came to this conclusion because she's one of those who don't let reality interfere with their preconceived notions. Â If the latter, than they arrived at that conclusion by looking at the data.

Another study by government health bodies proves absolutely nothing about the link between autism and vaccines.Â How about a real impartial study of fully vaccinated vs fully unvaccinated children?Â Â Needsd to be done by an independent group(funded by the gov't is ok) that will have nothing to lose following the results of the study. This study is a reincarnation of the 2004 study.Â What do you expect?maurine meleck

Where are you going to find a cohort of fully unvaccinated children? Â And who would you accept as an independent group?

I suspect from the tone of your comment that until whoever does the study comes up with the conclusion that vaccines are deadly and cause all the problems of the world, you won't be satisfied.

For what it's worth, the various studies cited in this report all use data available to legitimate researchers who can guarantee the anonymity of their subjects. Â Every study involving large enough numbers to make reliable conclusions have shown that each vaccine is safe and not related to autism. Â That you now want to compare with a group that has never been vaccinated is one more example of the right wingers' penchant for moving the goalposts when the other team scores.

Are you talking about Meleck or the people doing the study? Â If the former, she came to this conclusion because she's one of those who don't let reality interfere with their preconceived notions. Â If the latter, than they arrived at that conclusion by looking at the data.

Another study by government health bodies proves absolutely nothing about the link between autism and vaccines.Â How about a real impartial study of fully vaccinated vs fully unvaccinated children?Â Â Needsd to be done by an independent group(funded by the gov't is ok) that will have nothing to lose following the results of the study. This study is a reincarnation of the 2004 study.Â What do you expect?maurine meleck

Where are you going to find a cohort of fully unvaccinated children? Â And who would you accept as an independent group?

I suspect from the tone of your comment that until whoever does the study comes up with the conclusion that vaccines are deadly and cause all the problems of the world, you won't be satisfied.

For what it's worth, the various studies cited in this report all use data available to legitimate researchers who can guarantee the anonymity of their subjects. Â Every study involving large enough numbers to make reliable conclusions have shown that each vaccine is safe and not related to autism. Â That you now want to compare with a group that has never been vaccinated is one more example of the right wingers' penchant for moving the goalposts when the other team scores.

Are you talking about Meleck or the people doing the study? Â If the former, she came to this conclusion because she's one of those who don't let reality interfere with their preconceived notions. Â If the latter, than they arrived at that conclusion by looking at the data.

Another study by government health bodies proves absolutely nothing about the link between autism and vaccines.Â How about a real impartial study of fully vaccinated vs fully unvaccinated children?Â Â Needsd to be done by an independent group(funded by the gov't is ok) that will have nothing to lose following the results of the study. This study is a reincarnation of the 2004 study.Â What do you expect?maurine meleck

Where are you going to find a cohort of fully unvaccinated children? Â And who would you accept as an independent group?

I suspect from the tone of your comment that until whoever does the study comes up with the conclusion that vaccines are deadly and cause all the problems of the world, you won't be satisfied.

For what it's worth, the various studies cited in this report all use data available to legitimate researchers who can guarantee the anonymity of their subjects. Â Every study involving large enough numbers to make reliable conclusions have shown that each vaccine is safe and not related to autism. Â That you now want to compare with a group that has never been vaccinated is one more example of the right wingers' penchant for moving the goalposts when the other team scores.

Your tone also suggests some preconceived notions.Â The failure to study the adverse outcomes of the cumulative impact of the full vaccination schedule defies rational explanation.Â With 43% of American children now having been diagnosed with a chronic illness, a striking correlation between the increase in incidence of chronic illnesses with the increase in the schedule, and many, many reports of symptom onset following a round of shots, it may yet turn out to be the most tragic failure in the history of science.

Such research would have been a far better use of funds than this latest review by the IOM.

Your tone also suggests some preconceived notions.Â The failure to study the adverse outcomes of the cumulative impact of the full vaccination schedule defies rational explanation.Â With 43% of American children now having been diagnosed with a chronic illness, a striking correlation between the increase in incidence of chronic illnesses with the increase in the schedule, and many, many reports of symptom onset following a round of shots, it may yet turn out to be the most tragic failure in the history of science.

Such research would have been a far better use of funds than this latest review by the IOM.

Your tone also suggests some preconceived notions.Â The failure to study the adverse outcomes of the cumulative impact of the full vaccination schedule defies rational explanation.Â With 43% of American children now having been diagnosed with a chronic illness, a striking correlation between the increase in incidence of chronic illnesses with the increase in the schedule, and many, many reports of symptom onset following a round of shots, it may yet turn out to be the most tragic failure in the history of science.

Such research would have been a far better use of funds than this latest review by the IOM.

Well said, Colm! It's amazing how short tribal memory is: people who would have fallen over each other to get vaccinated against polio and smallpox in the 1950s and 1960s, have children who let their children catch measles and mumps and rubella and chickenpox - because "vaccines are harmful".

I grew up with people who were crippled by polio, and I remember seeing people with hideous scarring caused by smallpox. I had measles really badly; my sister got it twice. But one generation on, suddenly vaccines are too dangerous for our kids.

Do you civilians out the know that measles is more common in western Europe these days than in Mexico? Because they remember how many kids got blinded or suffered brain damage or died from measles, and the Europeans don't.

Well said, Colm! It's amazing how short tribal memory is: people who would have fallen over each other to get vaccinated against polio and smallpox in the 1950s and 1960s, have children who let their children catch measles and mumps and rubella and chickenpox - because "vaccines are harmful".

I grew up with people who were crippled by polio, and I remember seeing people with hideous scarring caused by smallpox. I had measles really badly; my sister got it twice. But one generation on, suddenly vaccines are too dangerous for our kids.

Do you civilians out the know that measles is more common in western Europe these days than in Mexico? Because they remember how many kids got blinded or suffered brain damage or died from measles, and the Europeans don't.

Well said, Colm! It's amazing how short tribal memory is: people who would have fallen over each other to get vaccinated against polio and smallpox in the 1950s and 1960s, have children who let their children catch measles and mumps and rubella and chickenpox - because "vaccines are harmful".

I grew up with people who were crippled by polio, and I remember seeing people with hideous scarring caused by smallpox. I had measles really badly; my sister got it twice. But one generation on, suddenly vaccines are too dangerous for our kids.

Do you civilians out the know that measles is more common in western Europe these days than in Mexico? Because they remember how many kids got blinded or suffered brain damage or died from measles, and the Europeans don't.